I'd like to think that we're all people that want to see humanity prosper and for people to be good to one another. Liberals, Conservatives, Communists and Fascists alike. The point of divergence is the fundamental principles guiding our vision of what that looks like and how it can be achieved. Therefore, I'd like to ask a question that I believe can help us all better understand other viewpoints. What should a government be for? As a Marxist, I view society as being a struggle between different social classes. As a Marxist-Leninist, I believe that the government is always a tool used by one class to promote itself and suppress the others. I want that tool to be in the hands of the working class, so that they can create a society where social class no longer exists and everyone is free to live without fear of hunger or exploitation.
The role of the government is to keep a level playing field where ability to achieve one's dream is based on merit. It is not to guarantee "equal" results, just equal opportunity.
In my opinion, a Government should be benevolent with a priority of seeing to it that no one goes hungry or suffers in any way.
IMHO, the role of government is to create an environment where business can succeed, and then get out of the way. Btw, please show me a case where a Marxist-Leninist society did not have an upper class. For that matter, show me a Marxist-Leninist society that has actually succeeded.
the proper job of the government is to determine how short my lawn must be all summer long... or else all hell will break loose... so they are forced to keep citizens in check to stop anarchy from occurring... and should I decide to plant a low growing grass, that violates this ordinance by 1 inch, but never requires me to cut my lawn all summer, they are there to ensure my neighbors will not have to live with this anarchy and compel me to cut my lawn to the correct length and restore order to the community... thats what government is for... at least thats what they told me 2 years ago, 18 months later and we're still going through the court system over lawn grass I refuse to cut...
The USSR from 1921-1953, before anti-socialist revisionists implemented market principles. China from 1949 until Deng Xiaoping reintroduced the system responsible for workers labouring for pennies a day in miserable factories. Cuba up until the modern day. Vietnam until they fell to revisionism. I could go on. The problem modern Marxist-Leninists debate is how revisionists should be prevented from gaining a foothold in the government.
So, in each of those governments that you listed they did not simply change one group of social elites for another? They revolutionists took the wealth from the rich, and kept the perks for themselves. The politically correct eat the best foods and owned cars while the workers walked five miles to stand in line for a loaf of bread. All the Marxist-Leninists do is change one group of elitists for another. When people figure that out, it fails.
Agreed! It is, at best, a TOOL for the people to better survive and excel. This is a question where generalities are the best answer, because time will end up telling what is best.
Actually, even during the height of revisionism, the disparity wasn't nearly as bad. Whatever history book you've read is garbage. There was a single famine in the 30s in the USSR and the rest of the pre-Khrushchev period was massively prosperous. The shortages didn't occur until market principles had been weakening the economy for several years. The planned economy never had such a massive failure. As for the supposed elite: Lenin worked himself into a grave for his country. Stalin wore the same uniform every day for years. Mao emulated the lifestyle of peasants. Read for yourself. A lot of the so-called authorities you've trusted are liars.
1. protect it's citizens 2. do what its citizens want it to do 3. ban communsim and enfore obligatory anti-communist education
